mtutiger

I dont get the extra 750k line or why that matters except that too often those arguing against Roe V. Wade also advocate for cuts to the social safety net.. To an extent, though not many remain, I have more respect for the D pro-life position because it cares more for the kid before and after birth.

Probably true.

It was nothing if not predictable

It would probably be easier to "Let Planned Parenthood sort it out" if they weren't constantly being threatened with losing sources of funding. As has often been the case for as long as I've been following this stuff

Its anecdotal, but some of the book banning stuff that we've seen threatened down here is pretty unpopular with some folks I know who don't necessarily share my world view. YMMV if you live in Illinois or NY

I'm increasingly of the view that the first three are less of an advantage and (in the case of CRT) the Gop may have overreached or gone a little overboard on it. And abortion ties into that... it's red meat right wing culture war stuff, and it's not clear at all to me that the median voter is all that into it. Inflation is the big one and, IMO, accounts for a lot of where the race sits right now (along with the general nature of midterms). Roe being repealed will have an impact (some of these statements coming out from GOP candidates and their campaign arm) are the biggest piece of evidence that is the case... the biggest impact may be generating interest from the D side.

Dog who caught the ambulance, Exhibit B

When I hear that, I just can imagine there's gonna be a ton of shock for a lot of women when they go to their OB appts. Maybe I'm ignorant (I am a man after all), but I don't know that everyone associates IUDs with abortion. And that form of birth control is pretty popular to my knowledge.

"This Rainout is Brought To You In Part by Toro...."

Yes!

It would be nice to think that a decrease in access to abortion and birth control could be coupled with more resources for families in order accommodate those births, but frankly, this country does a pretty terrible job of doing that with families as it is. I know that point grates like sandpaper for a lot of folks, but it doesn't make it any less true.

IUD's illegal? That's pretty extreme.

I guess my view is the kabuki aspect is irrelevant if Kav et. al did in fact misrepresent their views on the issue.

Yeah, it's seems pretty obvious whether it's through court action or through federal action, the desire for "states rights" on abortion will end the moment that this ruling comes down.

Exactly. Maybe it's all Kabuki theater, but it may still be accurate regardless that what fell out of their mouths of Collins / Murkowski didn't match what they ultimately did.

At least until someone challenges one of the states who legalize it, anyway.

Dingler now 2-3 with a double today.... 5 game hitting streak. Maybe we're writing him off too quickly???

Question not directed at you, more at Tigeraholic and others. I don't believe Texas' trigger law has these, for what it's worth. Which, again, makes them crazy extreme. And I'm not gonna assume that it'll be a standard feature for any state that decides to outlaw. (EDIT: does for life of mother, not for rape or incest)

Good enough opportunity to ask again whether the exceptions for rape, incest or health of woman are a consideration for those who would cheer this decision.

I don't think much can be done.... The conversation here was probably one of the more civil ones online today, and yet you still have words like "Nazi" and "Pharisee" and "murder" and "fascism" being thrown around. There's just too much division on this issue, which is a big reason why I try to avoid talking about it most of the time.

I mean, Lisa Murkowski literally just came out and said her confidence in the court has been rocked. Make of that what you will.... I get that it's probably pearl clutching at some level, but I doubt that social media is what's causing her confidence to be rocked here.

For one, the fact that Brett and Neil and Amy told one thing to Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins and they did another? Or how about the wife of one of the SCOTUS members was involved in the planning for halting the inauguration after the 2020 Election, yet we're all supposed to believe that member never interacted on those matters and he doesn't need to recuse himself about questions related to that event? Or maybe it's the fact that they kinda pick and choose on cases related to gerrymandering / VRA as to whether it's their role to intervene? Maybe some of those reasons are less justified than others, but it doesn't really change the fact that these are actions that weigh on the court's credibility for a lot of folks. It just is what it is.

I try to be optimistic, but it's getting really hard to be too optimistic at the direction this country is going in.

In the case of the SCOTUS, isn't it possible that some of the distrust may be self-inflicted?